SHIV RAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated 31/03/1992, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition, filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Shivraj Singh lodged an F.I.R. Police Station, Sadulsahar, against accused Harkishan Singh, Hans Prakash, Har Chand, Raghuveer Singh, Hardayal Singh and Shamsher Singh for the offences under Sections 147 and 336, I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, which was registered at Serial Number 48 of 1988. The accused party, also, lodged an F.I.R. against the complainant under Section 307, I.P.C. which was earlier in time and was registered Serial Number 47 of 1988. On the basis of that information, a case was registered against the petitioner (the complainant in this case). The police in the case, registered on the information of the petitioner, after necessary investigation, presented by the Final Report. After submission of the Final Report by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate gave notice to the complainant-petitioner. The petitioner, after the receipt of the notice, presented a Protest petition, which was treated as a complaint by the learned Magistrate and the statements of the petitioner complainant and the witnesses, produced by him, were recorded under Sections 200 and 202, Cr. P.C. After recording the statements, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate considered the complaint, the Final Report submitted by the police, the evidence recorded by the police as well as the evidence recorded by him, accepted the Final Report. Dissatisfied with the order dated 1/08/1990, accepting the Final Report the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 31/03/1992. Aggrieved with the order dated 31/03/1992, the petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Public Prosecutor.